A Fraud or a Fighter? Just Who Is Alex Jones? A Review of “Alex’s War”

[nobody's_hero]

Pfizer sponsors cnn. I think being sponsored by big pharma is light-years more offensive than being sponsored by big dick. I notice those who ALWAYS point out the harmless dick pills never mention pharma, the MIC, etc buying out the MSM. I wonder why that is?

Well, I wasn't gonna name any names here, but I remember the_Count loved to point out that my pillow guy was a grifter, meanwhile big Pharma and MIC grift billions and billions into their wallets. Never mind that though, I guess?

Like Mike Lindell is trying to make a quick buck and . . . everyone else isn't?

Like if I was keeping tabs on who is funding who, a guy who makes bedroom slippers and towels wouldn't be anywhere near the top of that list.

We know the best advertisers that ever approach someone who wants to expose the truth are gonna be your B-list -type ads. Vitamins, survival food, and pillows. You ain't getting Coca Cola to run an ad on your channel, sorry.

 

[fr33]

So you are okay with people being sued for saying something? Because that is the long and short of this. The first amendment protects unpopular speech. This whole thing is a sham. Today it is Alex Jones, tomorrow it's you and I. This all sets a bad precedence, regardless.

When I heard Alex Jones lost, I literally thought of you and logged onto this website. I hope those parents sue people like you next. You do zero research and accuse people of murdering/trafficing their children. You mindlessly share fake news and never leave your house.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

When I heard Alex Jones lost, I literally thought of you and logged onto this website. I hope those parents sue people like you next. You do zero research and accuse people of murdering/trafficing their children. You mindlessly share fake news and never leave your house.

Do you think the outcome of this case is reasonable ?

 

[fr33]

Yes, if my kids were murdered and I was hounded by morons, I would hope to make even more money. I'd probably disagree with myself if I hadn't put up with annoying libertarians for so long.

 

[TheTexan]

Some of the stuff AJ puts out is good advice. Like don't drink the tap water in areas where the frogs are gay

 

[donnay]

When I heard Alex Jones lost, I literally thought of you and logged onto this website. I hope those parents sue people like you next. You do zero research and accuse people of murdering/trafficing their children. You mindlessly share fake news and never leave your house.

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.”

― Martin Niemöller

Nothing new under the sun.

 

[vita3]

Yes, if my kids were murdered and I was hounded by morons, I would hope to make even more money. I'd probably disagree with myself if I hadn't put up with annoying libertarians for so long.[/QUOTE

decent thoughts

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Was 9/11 an inside job? Kennedy assassination? COVID pandemic? If someone has a platform and disagrees or questions a mainstream narrative, should they be sued? Saying I do not believe this shooting took place and here is why look at these crisis actors here and here and over again...Isn't that an opinion? The vaccine works! Take the shot and you won't get COVID.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

So you are okay with people being sued for saying something? Because that is the long and short of this. The first amendment protects unpopular speech. This whole thing is a sham. Today it is Alex Jones, tomorrow it's you and I. This all sets a bad precedence, regardless.

If Jones wanted to raise a First Amendment issue, he could have. Instead, his continual disobedience of court orders resulted in the judge's rendering a default judgment against him, which means he lost any ability to defend the case on the merits. So if you want to blame someone for this case setting a bad precedent, blame Jones.
(The case doesn't really set a precedent, except for narcissistic fools who would repeat Jones's obstructive tactics).

People who knowingly say things that are false and that result in harm to other people get sued all the time. It's called defamation and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and it isn't protected by the First Amendment.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Do you think the outcome of this case is reasonable ?

The punitive damages should have been higher.

 

[ClaytonB]

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.”

― Martin Niemöller

Nothing new under the sun.

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

The punitive damages should have been higher.

Do not many states limit punitive damages so it doesn't matter what the jury awards?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Do not many states limit punitive damages so it doesn't matter what the jury awards?

Yes. Sadly, Texas has a cap on punitive damages, so scum like Jones can simply build that risk into their cost of doing business and continue to spread lies. So long as gullible morons lap up their swill like so much Jim Jones kool aid, they'll still make a profit.

The Texas statute limits punitive damages to an amount equal to the greater of:

(1)(A) two times the amount of economic damages; plus

(B) an amount equal to any noneconomic damages found by the jury, not to exceed $750,000; or

(2) $200,000.

If the $4.1 million compensatory damage verdict represents noneconomic damages the most that Jones or his company would have to pay in punitives would be $750,000. The cap is per defendant, so the plaintiffs may be looking at only $1.5 million in punitives.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Yes. Sadly, Texas has a cap on punitive damages, so scum like Jones can simply build that risk into their cost of doing business and continue to spread lies. So long as gullible morons lap up their swill like so much Jim Jones kool aid, they'll still make a profit.

The Texas statute limits punitive damages to an amount equal to the greater of:

(1)(A) two times the amount of economic damages; plus

(B) an amount equal to any noneconomic damages found by the jury, not to exceed $750,000; or

(2) $200,000.

If the $4.1 million compensatory damage verdict represents noneconomic damages the most that Jones or his company would have to pay in punitives would be $750,000. The cap is per defendant, so the plaintiffs may be looking at only $1.5 million in punitives.

So in a risk cost analysis it might have been concluded that the cheaper way to go is to not defend himself but rather just pay the penalty after judgement rather than the expense of a long trial.

 

[donnay]

If Jones wanted to raise a First Amendment issue, he could have. Instead, his continual disobedience of court orders resulted in the judge's rendering a default judgment against him, which means he lost any ability to defend the case on the merits. So if you want to blame someone for this case setting a bad precedent, blame Jones.
(The case doesn't really set a precedent, except for narcissistic fools who would repeat Jones's obstructive tactics).

People who knowingly say things that are false and that result in harm to other people get sued all the time. It's called defamation and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and it isn't protected by the First Amendment.

He was not allow to make the first amendment as his defense.

https://www.brighteon.com/bb43012b-9c15-4969-9c36-929e6e41ac09

Attorney Exposes the Weaponization of the Justice System to Serve the Political Agenda of the Left
https://www.brighteon.com/7aa298db-6c94-46f1-ab32-93da574d2696

 

[ClaytonB]

He was not allow to make the first amendment as his defense.

https://www.brighteon.com/bb43012b-9c15-4969-9c36-929e6e41ac09

Attorney Exposes the Weaponization of the Justice System to Serve the Political Agenda of the Left
https://www.brighteon.com/7aa298db-6c94-46f1-ab32-93da574d2696

NPCs among us...

 

[Sonny Tufts]

He was not allow to make the first amendment as his defense.

The reason he wasn't allowed is because he continued to disobey court orders, after which the judge had no alternative but to use the nuclear option: enter a default judgment, which she is permitted to do under the Teas rules. The same thing happened in Connecticut.

The3 moral of the story is that if you want to make a First Amendment claim don't effectively tell the judge to piss up a stump.

 

[donnay]

The reason he wasn't allowed is because he continued to disobey court orders, after which the judge had no alternative but to use the nuclear option: enter a default judgment, which she is permitted to do under the Teas rules. The same thing happened in Connecticut.

The3 moral of the story is that if you want to make a First Amendment claim don't effectively tell the judge to piss up a stump.

No he didn't, he and his lawyer completely complied and yet it wasn't good enough. You are just listening to their side.

 

[ClaytonB]

The reason he wasn't allowed is because he continued to disobey court orders, after which the judge had no alternative but to use the nuclear option: enter a default judgment, which she is permitted to do under the Teas rules. The same thing happened in Connecticut.

The3 moral of the story is that if you want to make a First Amendment claim don't effectively tell the judge to piss up a stump.

You go get 'em, tiger!